Like this:

Related

No comments yet

Attacking Obama’s experience is a valid point and it doesn’t matter who is chosen as running mate to deflect this argument. Obama has spent most of his national career running for office. He has an unremarkable record as an Illinois state senator and an even less illuminating record as a Chicago politician under the Daley machine (no Democrat gets elected in Chicago with approval from Boss Jr.). He’s made one “correct” decision in the eyes of many (but not all) about Iraq. Does this qualify him to be President?

If Obama is elected President, it would be like hiring a fresh out Harvard MBA as CEO to run Fortune top 10 company – plenty of intelligence, plans and a fresh approach, but little or no experience in actually getting things done and dealing with issues. No large company would do that, so why is it OK to put a novice into the highest office in the country. He has never governed anything larger than a district in Chicago. Now pair him up with a retired General or some other senator or governor and it is equivalent to adding a middle manager to guide the CEO. Likewise, if his plan for “change” strays to far from DC politics as usual, he won’t get anything done and the Obama blueprint will stall.

This is my concern. Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, this concern transcends political boundaries and focuses on whether Obama really has enough experience to effectively meet the job requirements. This position requires more than just plans, charisma and judgment – you need a track record of experience as indicator of capability.

Yes, that’s a very valid way of looking at it, and I’m sure some voters will agree with you. Still, an equally valid way to look at it–and the view that I think will prevail among the electorate in November–is that Obama represents change and newness as opposed to the Washington political establishment.

It is unfortunate that Wes Clark cannot serve as SecDef, because I think he would be ideal in instrumenting the pullout of our troops from Iraq. I disagree with the blog entry that Wes Clark would be the ideal VP, but I think he would be excellent in a cabinet position.

If Obama chooses Clinton, it will be for the same reason JFK chose LBJ, because he would prefer she were inside the tent pissing out instead of outside the tent pissing in.

I also concur that Obama should pick a VP who has stronger Foreign Relation and Military experience, and more experience in negotiating with Congress. I hope Obama does not raid the Senate too much for cabinet positions.

I should add that Al Gore was my pick in ’91, before Clinton had chosen anyone. I knew that Cheney would appoint himself as Bush’s veep once he was assigned to the role, and that while they would not win per se, they would get in. More recently, while it was clear that Edwards would be Kerry’s veep pick, my feeling that they would not win proved to be true.